Abortion

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
FINALLY....

So far AC, the only point you have made that has convinced me of anything is that Abortion is not murder. You already know why, so I am not going to go into that with detail.

I think....it was either you or PVS.....who said that morality does not exist in Abortion, that Abortion is a neutral issue entirely, and that right or wrong is only our perspective.

Am I that forgettable?

IF this is the case, and I cannot argue this, because that ^ point is PURE opinion....then you also have to beleive that Murder is neutral, that every act that ever existed is neutral.

That's bullshit. Other acts, such as murder, effect other people and infringe on their way of life. Abortion does neither.

And here is the rest of your post so noone thinks Im taking it out of context or whatever.

What is your stance on that?

Just to clarify, or just incase I forget to mention later, I beleive that ANY issue concerning Life and Death involves morality. No, not the "right or wrong, no other option" kinda morality, but morality in general.

Please clarify your stance on or against that point as well.....

morality IS 'right or wrong or no other opinion'. holy crap. do you have another definition of morality than the English language??

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Am I that forgettable?

That's bullshit. Other acts, such as murder, effect other people and infringe on their way of life. Abortion does neither.

And here is the rest of your post so noone thinks Im taking it out of context or whatever.

morality IS 'right or wrong or no other opinion'. holy crap. do you have another definition of morality than the English language??

1) No you are not that forgettable. 🙄

2) Abortion is the taking of a life, therefore it is not an entirely neutral issue independent of morality.

3) Morality is not simply black and white the way you are putting it. Everyone's sense of morality is different, you are acting as if you NEVER went against your own moral standards, and that's hypocritical dude.

Morality, in my opinion of the word (as well as many others) is a mixture of our logic and emotion which formulates how we feel about a certain situation i.e. abortion, murder, etc.

You CAN morally think that a situation is nuetral, lacking in right or wrong. I for one think that in cases where the woman is raped, or where the fetus threatens her life, the Abortion is justifiable. There are many others who will disagree.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
2) Abortion is the taking of a life, therefore it is not an entirely neutral issue independent of morality.

This is an abuse of the word "life". Is a foetus alive? Yes. Does it have a life? No.

You have a life, I have a life, living human beings have working, functional lives. A foetus has about as much of a working, functional life as a tree. Less so, because it depends on something else to directly keep it alive.

It's alive, it's a living organism, but it doesn't have a life.

-AC

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak

That's bullshit. Other acts, such as murder, effect other people and infringe on their way of life. Abortion does neither.

It infriges on the life of the infant being aborted. That person, who has a right to life, had a whole life ahead of thm once they would have left the womb. But, no. It was aborted.

That fetus, not person, has a right to nothing if it will infringe on the mother's life. That's what you don't understand. The woman is the priority, if having the child is going to do more harm than good, then her life comes first. She is able to have another child later if she can/wants.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
[B]1) No you are not that forgettable. 🙄

Why that makes me feel all tingly inside.

2) Abortion is the taking of a life, therefore it is not an entirely neutral issue independent of morality.

It is not, it's prevention. Not exactly the same thing.

3) Morality is not simply black and white the way you are putting it. Everyone's sense of morality is different, you are acting as if you NEVER went against your own moral standards, and that's hypocritical dude.

"Everyone's sense of morality is different" I believe that's the very definition of subjective. Are you actually trying to prove me right? If I went against it or not is irrelevant, but if you must know, no I haven't, because what I consider morally correct falls exactly where I need it to, and also happens to overlap with what other people may call 'immoral' (more subjectivity, wow!). So I don't have to go against my own moral standards, they aren't the same as yours. See how that works?

Morality, in my opinion of the word (as well as many others) is a mixture of our logic and emotion which formulates how we feel about a certain situation i.e. abortion, murder, etc.

1. Your opinion of a factual definition doesn't really matter, it's not going to change the definition of the word.

2. Logic, as objective as it may seem, is dependant on your experience and therefore is subjective. Many people come to different logical conclusions, doesn't make them all right. Second, emotions are subjective too. Therefore, your statement, logic + emotion = morality, still makes morality subjective.

You CAN morally think that a situation is nuetral, lacking in right or wrong. I for one think that in cases where the woman is raped, or where the fetus threatens her life, the Abortion is justifiable. There are many others who will disagree.

Yea, you can, but that's not what you are doing. You are saying it's immoral, that it's wrong(mostly). And then you advocate it, even in situations where you firmly believe it to be just plain wrong.

Originally posted by Nazgulinthedark
It infriges on the life of the infant being aborted. That person, who has a right to life, had a whole life ahead of thm once they would have left the womb. But, no. It was aborted.

Stop living in the future that you imagine, live in the now, the present.

All you people do is "It would be...", "It could be..." and "It might have been..." for no other reason than selfishly trying to boost your debate. What it is factually is a foetus, not a person, a foetus. A foetus that is alive, it doesn't have a "life". There's "life" on Mars, but there aren't people walking around, going to the mall.

Stop abusing the term.

-AC

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
"Everyone's sense of morality is different" I believe that's the very definition of subjective. Are you actually trying to prove me right? If I went against it or not is irrelevant, but if you must know, no I haven't, because what I consider morally correct falls exactly where I need it to, and also happens to overlap with what other people may call 'immoral' (more subjectivity, wow!). So I don't have to go against my own moral standards, they aren't the same as yours. See how that works?

1. Your opinion of a factual definition doesn't really matter, it's not going to change the definition of the word.

2. Logic, as objective as it may seem, is dependant on your experience and therefore is subjective. Many people come to different logical conclusions, doesn't make them all right. Second, emotions are subjective too. Therefore, your statement, logic + emotion = morality, still makes morality subjective.

Yea, you can, but that's not what you are doing. You are saying it's immoral, that it's wrong(mostly). And then you advocate it, even in situations where you firmly believe it to be just plain wrong.

Ah....where to begin.

1) I beleive morality to be subjective and intuitive at the same time. However, i don't want to throw this debate off. I have made my stance on that clear in the morality threads (Athiest Morality from religion forum and Morality from this forum)...so if you want to further argue about that, take it to those forums. Otherwise, let's drop the "what is morality? " argument.

2) Okay my freind, what is the definition of morality? I've heard sooo maby definitions, let's hear yours ! 🙄 (In other thread please)

3) I am saying I BELEIVE Abortion is wrong in most cases, and then I have stated WHY I beleive so. I never stated my belief as fact, so what is the problem ?

the rest is in the other thread.

3) I am saying I BELEIVE Abortion is wrong in most cases, and then I have stated WHY I beleive so. I never stated my belief as fact, so what is the problem ? [/B]

You do not understand, and I don't see why. You argue that it is wrong, and then support that it should be available. Why do you not see that as backwards? You support something that you believe is wrong.

'That's bullshit. Other acts, such as murder, effect other people and infringe on their way of life. Abortion does neither.'

what are you basing this on? every case is different. have you had an abortion? just curious.

'That fetus, not person, has a right to nothing if it will infringe on the mother's life. That's what you don't understand. The woman is the priority, if having the child is going to do more harm than good, then her life comes first. She is able to have another child later if she can/wants."

taking the fetus right of passage away so that the mother doesnt have to be 'uncomfortable' is horseshit. its an excuse to be an idiot. making the chance of life pay for the mothers mistake is the most selfish thing i have ever heard of. but i guess what would i expect out of modern day people? yup, selfishness. thats why its so sad. listen, theres no point in arguing it because in this country, people have the right to be selfish, so let them be comfortable, let them enjoy the sex, let them stuff there face, let them become fuking fetus eaters because they dont want own up to real life and have an excuse to be an idiot.

The only conclusion, Arac, is that Urizen doesn't believe he has the right to oppose what he believes is wrong. He is unaware that you can be opposed to it without being for the banning of it. I know christians who are anti-abortion, but they accept it has to exist, because that's human rights. Speaking of human rights:

Originally posted by .😖pace Opera:.
taking the fetus right of passage away so that the mother doesnt have to be 'uncomfortable' is horseshit. its an excuse to be an idiot. making the chance of life pay for the mothers mistake is the most selfish thing i have ever heard of. but i guess what would i expect out of modern day people? yup, selfishness. thats why its so sad. listen, theres no point in arguing it because in this country, people have the right to be selfish, so let them be comfortable, let them enjoy the sex, let them stuff there face, let them become fuking fetus eaters because they dont want own up to real life and have an excuse to be an idiot.

Now, I have to ask. Why are you giving human being equal rights to an organism that can't even sustain itself? Why are you doing that? Purely because it was created by humans? It's not an equal human being, it's not a human being overall (you'll never find a doctor or scientist call it a person), it doesn't deserve equal human rights. It's that simple, it really is.

"The chance of life" is what's bs. You are living in what might be, not what is. It is a dependent foetus, it has no rights, especially ones that exceed that of its creator and host.

-AC

Originally posted by .😖pace Opera:.
'That's bullshit. Other acts, such as murder, effect other people and infringe on their way of life. Abortion does neither.'

what are you basing this on? every case is different. have you had an abortion? just curious.

'That fetus, not person, has a right to nothing if it will infringe on the mother's life. That's what you don't understand. The woman is the priority, if having the child is going to do more harm than good, then her life comes first. She is able to have another child later if she can/wants."

taking the fetus right of passage away so that the mother doesnt have to be 'uncomfortable' is horseshit. its an excuse to be an idiot. making the chance of life pay for the mothers mistake is the most selfish thing i have ever heard of. but i guess what would i expect out of modern day people? yup, selfishness. thats why its so sad. listen, theres no point in arguing it because in this country, people have the right to be selfish, so let them be comfortable, let them enjoy the sex, let them stuff there face, let them become fuking fetus eaters because they dont want own up to real life and have an excuse to be an idiot.

Since when was "more harm than good" a synonym for 'uncomfortable'!? What the ****, learn how to read. Some women can't physically go through childbirth, they'd die. Some women can't afford to take care of the child financially. Some women don't want to carry a reminder of their rape for 9 months and go trough 20 hours of labor. Some women just dont have the responsibility it takes to take care of a child. If a woman is not responsible enough to use protection(Im excluding cases where protection fails at the moment) what in the HELL makes you think she is fit to have and raise a child?

Pull your face from between your buttcheeks please.

" I know christians who are anti-abortion, but they accept it has to exist, because that's human rights. Speaking of human rights:"

this is the way i feel, in extreme cases. yes if the woman is raped and she doesnt want to have a baby that is a living reminder of what happened, thats totally understandable, or if she has an illness that cant hold her body up during pregnancy, thats also exceptable. what is SAD to me, not unnexeptable , but sad is that woman would rather not take the chance to be a hero and give the perfectly healthy baby to a couple who want one and are unable to have one. dont give me that "OH but fetus' dont have human rights" bullshit, because obviously they are not born into this world yet and havent breathed earths air so its impossible for them to have human rights, but what im saying is that when the decision comes right down to it, wouldnt you rather make somebody else so much happier and sacrifice the discomfort of pregnancy rather than sacrifice the fetus itself so that you dont have to go through it, and give that baby a life? for all you know he could grow up to be the person to cure cancer or something. i swear that if i met a woman who was single and pregnant and she said that she was going to have the baby and give it to somebody who wants it i would probly start to cry out in amazement and consider her an absolute hero in my eyes, rather than a scared confused woman who doesnt want to deal with it. i am not pushing my beliefs on people, and i was there with my ex when she had the abortion to support her. but i didnt want it to happen, i wanted to give the baby to a healthy family, but yes, it was her body and i could tell her anything i wanted but she chose a different path.

Originally posted by .😖pace Opera:.
this is the way i feel, in extreme cases. yes if the woman is raped and she doesnt want to have a baby that is a living reminder of what happened, thats totally understandable, or if she has an illness that cant hold her body up during pregnancy, thats also exceptable. what is SAD to me, not unnexeptable , but sad is that woman would rather not take the chance to be a hero and give the perfectly healthy baby to a couple who want one and are unable to have one. dont give me that "OH but fetus' dont have human rights" bullshit, because obviously they are not born into this world yet and havent breathed earths air so its impossible for them to have human rights,

A hero, for who? She doesn't need to be anything, or do anything for anyone but herself. You can cry and say it's selfish, I say so what? Where's the rule that says "Look after others before yourself"? That said, a foetus doesn't count, it's not a person.

Originally posted by .😖pace Opera:.
but what im saying is that when the decision comes right down to it, wouldnt you rather make somebody else so much happier and sacrifice the discomfort of pregnancy rather than sacrifice the fetus itself so that you dont have to go through it, and give that baby a life?

No, because it's not up to me. If the woman's answer is "No", then that's it. If the woman's answer is "Yes" then that's also up to her. You have no say, nor do you have any ground to stand on when you're spewing out these ridiculous hypotheticals.

Originally posted by .😖pace Opera:.
for all you know he could grow up to be the person to cure cancer or something.

First of all, he? Subconscious sexism there?

Second, such pathetic nonsense. That is the worst argument anyone can use, ever. Why are you trying to argue for what it could become? Stop thinking about an imaginary future for crying out loud. Think about the now, think about what it is when this all happens. It's a foetus, not a president, not a racist dictator (because it has a chance to become anything, if that's your argument), nothing. It's just a foetus, an organism dependent on a host to keep it alive. If that host decides otherwise, that's it.

Originally posted by .😖pace Opera:.
i swear that if i met a woman who was single and pregnant and she said that she was going to have the baby and give it to somebody who wants it i would probly start to cry out in amazement and consider her an absolute hero in my eyes, rather than a scared confused woman who doesnt want to deal with it. i am not pushing my beliefs on people, and i was there with my ex when she had the abortion to support her. but i didnt want it to happen, i wanted to give the baby to a healthy family, but yes, it was her body and i could tell her anything i wanted but she chose a different path.

There you go then, stay out of it and stop living in delusion.

-AC

its no delusion. dont you find it sad that pople cant have babies and that people who can have a baby throw it away?

""Look after others before yourself"?"

help others in need is what i was thinking.

Women aren't baby breeding machines for infertile couples.

"for all you know he could grow up to be the person to cure cancer or something."

Or he could grow up and anally rape your grandchildren. 'what ifs' dont have a place in making decisions in the present.

Originally posted by .😖pace Opera:.
its no delusion. dont you find it sad that pople cant have babies and that people who can have a baby throw it away?

I think it is rather distasteful that some women use abortion as birth control when there are couples out there who can't have children, I do. However, this doesn't mean that a single person's life should be altered so those couple's can benefit. As Arac said, they're not built for those couples.

You are all for letting nature take its course, nature has decided that certain females cannot bear children. Why ignore it?

Originally posted by .😖pace Opera:.
help others in need is what i was thinking.

People have this sanctimonius belief that helping everyone else is a way to a better world. Maybe ideally, but not realistically. If we don't let people deal with their own problems when they are capable, especially when it's none of our business, how are we- as a race- going to achieve anything?

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Read it again.

-AC [/B]

That wasn't my post... 😮

My bad, I copy and paste the quote tag if I quote more than one post. Forgot to edit name.

-AC

This is an issue that I am torn on. I don't think that women should use abortions as a form of birth control. Being raped, child being deformed and the like, and a high risk fetal/mother/both death I would see as valid reasons for getting an abortion. But I also don't see how the government can come in and put a gun to the woman's head and say that she has to have this baby.
Reply With Quote